RPM vs DEB vs Slackware-like tgz

Bruce Dubbs bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Wed May 21 21:37:59 PDT 2008

Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> This seems to be the knotty problem.  Just how are we going to *use* PM in LFS?
> Both RPM and Debian package managers require writing a set of control files in 
> order to create a package. Although it is possible to write dummy files 
> containing only packaging information for pre-built files (and no building 
> instructions), this is not how these tools are supposed to be used. I.e., I 
> strongly object to this severe lobotomization. In this case, a simpler package 
> management scheme is needed. However, in simple tar-based schemes, there is a 
> trap in handling configuration files when upgrading a package.
> So: given that we still can't agree on the set of features to implement, I 
> propose LFS to never have any sort of PM, and those who disagree with this "no 
> PM" policy should start a fork right now.

That is an extreme reaction.  My question was meant to discuss. Because I don't 
have a good answer, I wanted to further that to try to understand the issues 
better and possible solutions.  Instead, I get a final conclusion that it can't 
be done.

Your conclusion that "we still can't agree on the set of features to implement" 
is *far* too premature.

I'm not sure whether I personally want to use PM or not, but I know others do 
and PM is certainly something that distros do.  For that reason, I think it 
belongs in the book.

   -- Bruce

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list